Calling beaslbob!! need help?

[Anonymous]

Since you keep bringing it up, bob here's the thread at RC from Dr. Holmes-Farley's forum from April 2004:

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showt ... 0carbonate

I know you can't click on it so here is your question:

Originally posted by beaslbob
Randy:

My system is "old school". by that I mean, playsand with crushed coral on top, non limestone base rock, in tank refug with caulpera and brillow pad, macros in display, and an external sump/refug. Tank is standard 55g with 2- 2 tube 4' shop lights on the back glass for the in tank refug and 2-2 tube shop lights on top. top lights have 2 actinic and 2 5600k 3500 lumen tubes. Livestock is a yellow tang, royal gramma, coral beauty, 2 percs, host anemone, yellow gobie, 10 or so turbos, ~5-10 hermits, green brittle starfish, open brain, green star and various buttons.

I also have another tank for macro algae culture. it is a 20g and used for macro algae culture.

Both tank evaporate about the percentage per day and both are topped off with tap water. No water changes are done.

After some time both tanks' calcium was down to the 250-300 ppm level. (using a red sea test kit with 50ppm sensitivity, later i got a more sensitive test kit)

I got a more accurate (sensitive) kit for cal and added crushed oyster shells to my diy filter box. that filter box passes all the water through the shells. the filter box is in the external sump/refug. It is powered by a mag5 with a pump height of about 4-5 feet.

I understand low ph is needed for the calcium reactors to work. My ph just before lights on is now about 7.8 and just before lights out is 8.4 or higher. (aquarium pharmi.... test kit)

My question simply is: is possible the crushed oyster shells provided calcium to the system? (Sure seems so) Over many weeks, calcium has slowly risen and stayed at ~400ppm in the 55g but remained at 250-300 in the 20g.

Obvously there is a very low calcium load in the 55g. And both tanks have virtually no calcium sources. both tanks use play sand for instance.

thanks in advance.

Here is his response:

Originally posted by Randy Holmes-Farley
Calcium carbonate will dissolve as the pH is lowered to the mid 7's and lower, and low pH often exists in sand beds where the oxidiation of buried organics can reduce the pH. That is not usually enough to sustain a reef aquarium, but if the demand is low, of the amount of organics entering the sand is high, or both, perhaps it can for a while.

Also, low alkalinity will encourage CaCO3 to dissolve. Have you measured the alkalinity in both aquaria?

Finally, there may be an initial stage where magnesium (from the salt mix) is replacing calcium in the surface regions of the substrate, and that may temporarily raise claicum.

The bolded emphasis in his quote is mine. Bob, since you have access now to Dr. Holmes-Farleys entire quote in full context including where he states that the amount of cc dissolved in your patent fashion is inadequate for a reef tank in the long run, are you still going to continue to make your usual assertions?

Also, since this thread is from a year ago almost exactly I wonder how you can claim that your method assures long term sucess since on subsequent posts on several boards you mention problems such as loosing livestock and coral?

As an aside, I also found elsewhere on RC where you posted with regard to why you don't use R/O D/I water is that, in your opinion, although the water quality would be better that it wasn't the cost involved with the unit, but that it takes far too long to get enough water to do water changes :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

As an aside, I also found elsewhere on RC where you posted with regard to why you don't use R/O D/I water is that, in your opinion, although the water quality would be better that it wasn't the cost involved with the unit, but that it takes far too long to get enough water to do water changes :lol:

Much quicker to just do fish and coral changes.

 

[Juck]

Much quicker to just do fish and coral changes.

lol,,, not so funny though I guess.

Bob, have you actually ever sat down and looked at your tank. It's horrible. Anyone who wants to duplicate it is blind, mad or drunk.

 

[Anonymous]

Please don't insult us drunks :x

 

[Anonymous]

Please don't insult us drunks :x

Yeah I'm not as think as you drunk I am!

 

[Anonymous]

I liked this reply

So there is what I consider a lot of area and very good water flow through the shells.

OK, then the pH won't drop too much inside of it, and dissolution should be minimal, unless the calcium, pH, alkalinity, or somecombination thereof drops low enough in the flowing water to cause some dissolution.

At a pH of 7.9, calcium 250 ppm, and an alkalinity of 2.0 meq/L, the shells may begin to dissolve. It does not happen when the pH, calcium, and alkalinity are normal for seawater.

 

[Anonymous]

The last sentence there is definately a clincher.

What it says to me is that Oyster Shells will not dissolve if you have a healthy tank.

 

[Anonymous]

Well he obvioulsy is set on his tank and his methods despite what the majority say.. I think Bob here is out to start a "new" method... Unfortunately his methods for the most part are scientifically disproven...

The only thing that can be done is to discourage him from posting bad advise...

One thing I have found in my limited experience is that the cheap way and cutting corners is more costly in the long run not to mention unhealthy for the animals that depend on your care...

I also have noticed that Bob is drawn to this attention, even if it is negative in nature...My observation is that he seems to do it (posting bad advise) for his mere entertainment knowing full well that a few of us, including me are gonna critisize him for it... I could be wrong but he takes the "critisism" all too well...

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Lawdawg. That thread and this thread point out one of the most frustrating things about bob - only seeing the parts of what other people say that support his ideas while ignoring the rest.

Polcat - what corals are you planning on keeping in this tank? We spend much time on bob discussing his ca levels without paying too much attention to the idea that he really has a very low level of animals that need ca.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Lawdawg. That thread and this thread point out one of the most frustrating things about bob - only seeing the parts of what other people say that support his ideas while ignoring the rest.

My pleasure Righty. I too am sick of Bob's cherry picking his data and presenting the fruit of faulty reasoning as fact.

 

[Anonymous]

Have you tested the ca of your tapwater?

nope

why?

because

Have you removed the oyster shells to see if ca drops

nope and not necessary

Again why?

because

sufficient to limit the coral loss at night to some value less than the coral growth during the daytime.

I dont understand that statement..limit coral loss at night? Dont you want to limit coral loss period?

Sure. The real question is on a home display system do I want to spend $1000 just to get a say 10% growth increase. And in the process wind up with a system that is always needing adjustments, and constant maintenance. To that is simply not worth it.

I have already answered your why questions before. the anser to why is always because.

 

[Anonymous]

The $1000 in equipment is to keep your animals thriving and beautiful so you don't have to spend $500 a year replacing them and you can actually make a couple G's propogating them.

In the long run it's actually quite cost effective.

 

[Anonymous]

Sure. The real question is on a home display system do I want to spend $1000 just to get a say 10% growth increase. And in the process wind up with a system that is always needing adjustments, and constant maintenance. To that is simply not worth it.

I have already answered your why questions before. the anser to why is always because.

10% growth in what time frame? A month? A year? If you only get a 10% growth in a matter of months (depending on the species) on your coral, regardless of your equipment you are doing something seriously wrong anyway. Cripes, I get 10% or better every month on my Xenia alone. Hey, I bet I'm not the only one either, that would explain all the reefers who "frag" excess growth!/sarcasm

Reefkeeping is not an experiment in Darwinism, where only the hardiest animals "survive" because you are unable or unwilling to take the time and money to maintain a more viable environment. Stick to keeping bettas in glass jars if you want cheap entertainment.

Of course you are going to spend the $1000 you mention anyway bob, How much have you spent already to replace the animals you have lost? I suppose I can take the time to look up your other posts on other boards and come up with a figure if your memory fails you.

 

[HClH2OFish]

AD 1997..not hardly old unless you consider 26 to be old :?
:wink:

I have lived here since AD 1963, and yes I consider myself old. I have children older than you LordNikon :lol: I did go to HS here, Moon Valley high class of AD 1972.

I'm still young to reefin' though :?

Mike

Peoria huh? I just moved up to Surprise (163rd Ave and Bell). And our water sucks hardcore. Which LFS do you go to? I like Aquatouch on 32nd st and Cactus.

 

[Anonymous]

I find it telling that bob has nothing to say about being wrong about what Randy said.

This brings us to another of bobs other major misrepresentations:

Sure. The real question is on a home display system do I want to spend $1000 just to get a say 10% growth increase. And in the process wind up with a system that is always needing adjustments, and constant maintenance. To that is simply not worth it.

Bob confuses complexity with unreliable.

The following has been pointed out to bob several times -

My tank is pretty gadget heavy, skimmer with a float switch, double float switches for top off, ca reactor,RODI, kalk reactor, return pump, closed loop...and all of it hardly needs constant maintenance or adjustments. Bob misses the point that once any system is dialed in, it hardly needs any adjustments. The gadgets allow[/] me to spend less time worrying about my tank.
I think his price point is skewed as well since he refuses to acknowledge DIY and used equipment.

None of this should belittle the point that 'simple' systems can work just as well as 'complex' systems. There is much personal choice in this hobby, and I think all choices are good as long as you have a good general understanding of why you are doing what you are deciding to do. I have more of a problem with bobs faulty 'whys' and how he presents them as time proven fact, then with the system he has.

 

[Anonymous]

AD 1997..not hardly old unless you consider 26 to be old :?
:wink:

I have lived here since AD 1963, and yes I consider myself old. I have children older than you LordNikon :lol: I did go to HS here, Moon Valley high class of AD 1972.

I'm still young to reefin' though :?

Mike

Peoria huh? I just moved up to Surprise (163rd Ave and Bell). And our water sucks hardcore. Which LFS do you go to? I like Aquatouch on 32nd st and Cactus.

Hey - do you live in Sun City Grand by my parents?

 

[HClH2OFish]

AD 1997..not hardly old unless you consider 26 to be old :?
:wink:

I have lived here since AD 1963, and yes I consider myself old. I have children older than you LordNikon :lol: I did go to HS here, Moon Valley high class of AD 1972.

I'm still young to reefin' though :?

Mike

Peoria huh? I just moved up to Surprise (163rd Ave and Bell). And our water sucks hardcore. Which LFS do you go to? I like Aquatouch on 32nd st and Cactus.

Hey - do you live in Sun City Grand by my parents?

Actually you go one block north of the Sun City Grand entrance on Bell and left at Sarival I'm in one of the new homes there....nice place but the F16's from Luke bug our dogs

And good lord man!! Don't you ever sleep?????

 

[Anonymous]

AD 1997..not hardly old unless you consider 26 to be old :?
:wink:

I have lived here since AD 1963, and yes I consider myself old. I have children older than you LordNikon :lol: I did go to HS here, Moon Valley high class of AD 1972.

I'm still young to reefin' though :?

Mike

Peoria huh? I just moved up to Surprise (163rd Ave and Bell). And our water sucks hardcore. Which LFS do you go to? I like Aquatouch on 32nd st and Cactus.

Hey - do you live in Sun City Grand by my parents?

Actually you go one block north of the Sun City Grand entrance on Bell and left at Sarival I'm in one of the new homes there....nice place but the F16's from Luke bug our dogs

Can I come see your tank next time I am in town?

And good lord man!! Don't you ever sleep?????

:mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

The $1000 in equipment is to keep your animals thriving and beautiful so you don't have to spend $500 a year replacing them and you can actually make a couple G's propogating them.

In the long run it's actually quite cost effective.

No Guy. It is not about replacing any more livestock with these systems then with the expensive, complicated systems. It is about the water quality in a stable system with little to no maintenance (operator interference) required. To me a system that is delicately balanced and being maintained by numerous mechanical devices will kill many more fish and corals than one the is maintaining its conditions without human intervention. I would gladly pay $1000s setting up such a system. The fact you actually wind up not spending $1000s is just a benefit.

 

[Anonymous]

Again Bob, chooses to post, but to ignore any actual evidence presented and to attempt to stay frimly in the realm of 'opinion'.

The $1000 in equipment is to keep your animals thriving and beautiful so you don't have to spend $500 a year replacing them and you can actually make a couple G's propogating them.

In the long run it's actually quite cost effective.

No Guy. It is not about replacing any more livestock with these systems then with the expensive, complicated systems.

I think guy was talking specifically about your system.

It is about the water quality in a stable system with little to no maintenance (operator interference) required.

You keep saying stuff like this, when the reality of the situation is that gadget systems and your system often have about the same amount of maintenance.

To me a system that is delicately balanced and being maintained by numerous mechanical devices will kill many more fish and corals than one the is maintaining its conditions without human intervention.

Since you have never kept such a system I am at a loss as to how you can make such a judgment. PLUS, you completely ignore the fact that many people with such systems experience no where near the losses that you have experienced.
And, your system would kill bunches of animals without human intervention. All glass boxes in homes full of ocean life need human intervention - to imply that somehow what you are advocating somehow needs no human intervention or little human intervention is grossly misleading.